Austin12345-Playhavock

One-on-one debates

Moderator: Moderators

Post Reply
austin12345
Apprentice
Posts: 127
Joined: Fri Jul 13, 2012 6:05 pm

Austin12345-Playhavock

Post #1

Post by austin12345 »

In today’s Debate I will Defend two contentions. First there are no good reasons to not believe in God. Or to think he doesn’t exist. Second there are comparably good reasons to think God exists. Now I will leave it up to my opponent to discuss his side of the arguments. But for Theism I will present five arguments in defense of the Question does God exist? And if so which One?
My first argument is the Kalam Cosmological argument. The argument is as follows
1. Anything that begins to exist has a cause.
2. 2. The universe began to exist
3. Therefore, the universe has a cause.
The atheist to refute this argument has to deny one of the two premesis. The first Anything that begins to exist has a cause. Well let’s look at this to see if this is true.

Ex Nihilo Nihil Fit says that out of nothing nothing comes. To deny this fact would be to go against all metaphysical truths. But does this term have any truth. Well to deny this would say that something comes from nothing. But this is not possible. For nothingness is not anything. It has no propertys no potentialities and no powers. It literally can do nothing unless there is a cause.

So this first premis holds. What about the second. Well to deny the second would be going against all modern science. For example, in 2003 Arvin Borde, Alan Guth and Alexander Velinkin, were able to proof that any universe which has, on average been expanding in its existence is not infinite but finite it the past. This proof is so powerful because it stands true no matter the physical description of the earliest stages of the universe. It also holds even if our universe is just one of many in a multi-verse.

Velinkins own words put it like this:
It is said that an argument is what convinces reasonable men and a proof is what it takes to convince even an unreasonable man. With the proof now in place, cosmologists can no longer hide behind the possibility of a past-eternal universe. There is no escape, they have to face the problem of a cosmic beginning (Many Worlds in One [New York: Hill and Wang, 2006], p.176).

Read more: http://www.reasonablefaith.org/contempo ... z22vZdTxww.
This is just one of the many proofs. Some others include
The beginning of space time in the big bang
The theory of general relativity
The laws of thermodynamics
The Philosophical impossibilities that the universe would have to be infinite in distance if eternal because of expansion. But this is not true.
The last I will discuss is the Impossibilites of eternal time. It is impossible for a couple reasons.
1. To say time is eternal is a self contadiction. This is because that if it were eternal you could never get to this point in time. Why? Because there would be an infinite amount of time before us that could not have been traveled. Since this is not possible you could travel back as far as you wanted, to the highest concievable number yet time could never get there. This is because there would still be an infinite amount of time before that point you couldn’t travel. Hence, time would never exist. A good example of this is trying to count down from infinity to zero. You couldn’t even start. Whatever ever number you think of there is more.
2. The second improbability is that if time was eternal there would have to be an infinite number of past events. This is also impossible. One reason being what is infinity minus infinity. Well its infinity. Then say what is infinity minus the infinite amount of numbers greater than ten. Well the answer is ten. This shows infinity is not in reality, it is just a concept in your mind.
3. This following quote is from William Lane Craig about Hilbets Hotel and the impossibilities of infinity

Perhaps the best way to bring home the truth of (2.11) is by means of an illustration. Let me use one of my favorites, Hilbert's Hotel, a product of the mind of the great German mathematician, David Hilbert. Let us imagine a hotel with a finite number of rooms. Suppose, furthermore, that all the rooms are full. When a new guest arrives asking for a room, the proprietor apologizes, "Sorry, all the rooms are full." But now let us imagine a hotel with an infinite number of rooms and suppose once more that all the rooms are full. There is not a single vacant room throughout the entire infinite hotel. Now suppose a new guest shows up, asking for a room. "But of course!" says the proprietor, and he immediately shifts the person in room #1 into room #2, the person in room #2 into room #3, the person in room #3 into room #4 and so on, out to infinity. As a result of these room changes, room #1 now becomes vacant and the new guest gratefully checks in. But remember, before he arrived, all the rooms were full! Equally curious, according to the mathematicians, there are now no more persons in the hotel than there were before: the number is just infinite. But how can this be? The proprietor just added the new guest's name to the register and gave him his keys-how can there not be one more person in the hotel than before? But the situation becomes even stranger. For suppose an infinity of new guests show up the desk, asking for a room. "Of course, of course!" says the proprietor, and he proceeds to shift the person in room #1 into room #2, the person in room #2 into room #4, the person in room #3 into room #6, and so on out to infinity, always putting each former occupant into the room number twice his own. As a result, all the odd numbered rooms become vacant, and the infinity of new guests is easily accommodated. And yet, before they came, all the rooms were full! And again, strangely enough, the number of guests in the hotel is the same after the infinity of new guests check in as before, even though there were as many new guests as old guests. In fact, the proprietor could repeat this process infinitely many times and yet there would never be one single person more in the hotel than before.
But Hilbert's Hotel is even stranger than the German mathematician gave it out to be. For suppose some of the guests start to check out. Suppose the guest in room #1 departs. Is there not now one less person in the hotel? Not according to the mathematicians-but just ask the woman who makes the beds! Suppose the guests in room numbers 1, 3, 5, . . . check out. In this case an infinite number of people have left the hotel, but according to the mathematicians there are no less people in the hotel-but don't talk to that laundry woman! In fact, we could have every other guest check out of the hotel and repeat this process infinitely many times, and yet there would never be any less people in the hotel. But suppose instead the persons in room number 4, 5, 6, . . . checked out. At a single stroke the hotel would be virtually emptied, the guest register reduced to three names, and the infinite converted to finitude. And yet it would remain true that the same number of guests checked out this time as when the guests in room numbers 1, 3, 5, . . . checked out. Can anyone sincerely believe that such a hotel could exist in reality? These sorts of absurdities illustrate the impossibility of the existence of an actually infinite number of things.
Because of all this it follows the universe has a cause.

2. The second argument is The moral argument for the existence of God. The argument is as follows:
1. If objective moral values do exist then God exists
2. Objective moral values do exist
3. Therefore God exists
Well what I mean by objective is something that is binding to everyone wether you believe in it or not. Something that we all know to be right or wrong. Do not misunderstand me when I say they only exist because God made them. I mean that but I’m not imply only Christians live moral lives, I am only saying that these morals can only be grounded in an all loving Creator of the Cosmos.
The Bible says that “I have written my word in their hearts.� (Hebrews 8:10)
The atheist has no grounds to think that things like rape, child abuse, killing your loved one is wrong. They just happen to be socially unacceptable. They believe we are all animals. Like someone stepping out of the herd. On atheism these morals are just products of socio evolution and have no definite right or wrong.
Micheal ruse Philosopher of science and biology says:
"The position of the modern evolutionist is that humans have an awareness of morality because such awareness is of biological worth. Morality is a biological adaptation no less than hands and feet and teeth. Considered as a rationally justifiable set of claims about an objective something, ethics is illusory. (The Evolutionary Theory and Christian Ethics, in the Darwinian Paradigm, pp. 262-269. Emphasis in blue added.)
So on atheism ethics and morals do not exist.
Another argument against Christianity is the problem of evil. But this in no way disproves God. This actually proves God! This is because without God there would be neither good nor evil. Since we recognize good and evil it follows it comes from God.
My third Argument for the Existence of God is the Teleological argument. Recent scientific discoveries have shown the fine tuning of the universe right after the initial big bang for life to exist.
1. The fine tuning of the universe is either by law, chance or design
2. It is not by chance or Law
3. Therefore it is designed.

Martin Rees is an atheist and a qualified astronomer. He wrote a book called “Just Six Numbers: The Deep Forces That Shape The Universe�, (Basic Books: 2001). In it, he discusses 6 numbers that need to be fine-tuned in order to have a life-permitting universe.
Rees writes here:
“These six numbers constitute a ‘recipe’ for a universe. Moreover, the outcome is sensitive to their values: if any one of them were to be ‘untuned’, there would be no stars and no life. Is this tuning just a brute fact, a coincidence? Or is it the providence of a benign Creator?�
http://winteryknight.wordpress.com/2009 ... ane-craig/
Some examples of Fine tuning are the Gravitational constant, The interaction of particle with the higgs boson particle for mass, The strong force, etc. The question is not fine tuning but is why?
The first option namely laws can not be possible because all this came into existence at the big bang and were just coming into place. This strongly disproves their control of fine tuning.
How about Chance? Well something like the cosmological constant is so fine tuned it is to the 101^20 in order for life to exist. The universe has so many variables that the probability of chance is so astronomically far out I will take my chances with Design.(not my best argument at defending)

My fourth and last argument is the Resurrection of Jesus. Jesus in his life time made such extreme claims about himself being God, that he is YHWH incarnate. To back it up he performed a ministy of Miracles. But the final Confirmation of his claims is the Resurrection from the Dead. Many people do not believe that there are many facts to back this claim up, but, there are indeed four major facts agreed upon by the Majority of all scholars, whether Christians or Skeptics.
1. Jesus was Crucified
2. Jesus was buried by a member or the Jewish sanhedrin Joseph of Arimathea
3. On the Third day his tomb was found empty by a group of his women followers.
4. The disciples had seen appearances of Jesus alive after death. They came to believe in him as the Risen Lord while having every pre-disposition to the contrary.
I will let you argue against this for lack of ability to type a whole paper on this. Then I will defend it.

User avatar
playhavock
Guru
Posts: 1086
Joined: Thu Jun 07, 2012 10:38 am
Location: earth

Opening presentation

Post #2

Post by playhavock »

First and foremost, let me a moment to thank my opponent for taking his time to debate me on this issue, second let me explain to those reading our debate the format - we will both be giving an Opening, then we will take turns to rebuttal each other’s Opening statements - so my rebuttals to my opponents opening will wait until my opening has concluded and I will have a second post saying "Rebuttal" - my opponent then will have a chance to post his Rebuttal to my opening statements and then we will each take a turn rebutting each other’s previous rebuttals. - I hope this is clear enough for those reading along! :D And now, without further ado, let us begin.
----------------

The question we are considering here in this debate is "Does God exist in reality? If so, which one?"

We can understand, I would gather, the word “is� without a dictionary to help us, and the word “real� means something in reality, not something dreamed of, or in the brain, or something that is possible.

I would hope that the word "Exist" is also clear - by exist we are referring to something within reality rather then something that is in the brain only.

We are also asking the question that if a God exist what God is it that exists.

Now, of course, we come to the word “God� in this debate I will be using the letter (G) to stand in for the word, I do not have a definition of “God� only that I can tell by the use of the capital letter it is a proper name or is meant to be viewed as such. So, I shall be using (G) to mean God and/or Gods and/or god and or gods.

Now, my opponent has offered a few augments for thinking that there might be a (G) and for thinking that the version of (G) might indeed be the version that he happens to think is the actual version. We must note - that no augment can prove that something is true or false - only that it is logically valid or invalid.

We can only know that something is true if we have empirical evidence and/or a repeatable test of it - most if not all things fall into this categories - a few perhaps do not, but for the most part almost all things can be shown to be true with the scientific method, and the few things that cannot be shown to be true are not extraordinary claims - we can assume they are true - social matters fall into this category often - statements of "I love my Mother" are not empirically verifiable without extraordinary methods of testing that we could do to prove the point, we can assume innocence in such matters - but an extraordinary claim of "I can fly because I love my Mother" would require some empirically verified demonstration with testing to show that this is true.

When we use logic to deduce something we have a limit - we must know if the premises are true - if we do not know they are true, or have questions about them, we must deconstruct the premises and reveal them to be a logical fallacy, or to be untruthful in some way - or both. After doing this we can conclude only that we should be skeptical about the conclusion of the augment.

Now, we see that my worthy opponent has done some of my work for me - he defends from the start that he is merely defending ideas, not to warrant proof for his ideas, only that it is reasonable or logical to conclude they are true I quote:
In today’s Debate I will defend two contentions. First there are no good reasons to not believe in God. Or to think he doesn’t exist. Second there are comparably good reasons to think God exists.


As we can see - "defend" two contentions is not the same as "give proof that these things are true" and a good thing - for my opponent and all believers that I have seen give augments thus far for (G) have yet to provide any empirical evidence or repeatable test for any (G) so they must use augments to try to make (G) a logically valid conclusion - can they do this? I have never seen one augment thus far that is logically valid.

So, are there no logical or as my opponent says it "no good reasons." to not believe in (G)? Well, I think I have already outlined one - mainly that (G) has no deferent definition - this by itself is already a huge issue for me, I cannot even define what it is I am talking about, so how can I say that I believe or do not believe in it when I do not know what it is? (More on this in a moment)

Second, the fact that - so far - no empirical evidence has been given for any (G). This shows a huge red flag for me - and that there is no test - not a single one we can perform on (G) to show it to be a thing - this brings a second huge red flag up - waving in the air, suggesting that I should be very, very skeptical about this idea.

-Problem of definition of the word “God�-
The first problem I see, before even beginning the debate in earnest is the fact that all humans who use this word do not agree upon what the word means. All religions have different versions of what they mean by the same word. We reason, via logic that not all religions could be right about the (G) they are claiming, but they could all be wrong. Of note, some religions do avoid the issue by claiming that all (G) that can exist do exist, but if they are right, then serenely monotheistic religions that claim there is only one (G) are wrong. Still - who is RIGHT - where is the measuring stick for reality to decide what (G) is the actual (G)? Without this, we seem to be at a loss, we simply cannot define (G).

-How do we find out who is right?-
Still, it leaves us with the question – what religion has it correct – if any? And for this question to be answered or even hope to be answered – we must it seems ask and answer the question of what evidence, if any they offer – as the burden on those making the claims is there’s to produce – we must then ask if this evidence is true, or if there are any questions about it. Empirical evidence would be the best kind, and a repeatable test would be great to have, yet – it seems, no region has this to offer.

-What evidence shall we look at?-
So, it seems we have some other sort of evidence to consider other than empirical, very well – what could that evidence be – does it conclude one religion over all others, or is there a flaw in the evidence or the way that we scrutinize evidence. We must ask critical questions and see if the evidence can withstand the onslaught of questions we have, and if not, we must then be skeptical that said evidence is actual.

-Miracles-
Most religions (but not all) will claim that events are occurring now (or have done so in the past) that are “miracles� that is – there is no other way to account for them other than with (G). Now – the word miracle itself has similar problems to the word (G) but, even more troubling that a clear definition cannot be produced – still worse than this, a miracle by definition could never be something you were sure it was in fact, a miracle – for they are rare events that apparently cannot be summoned on command or repeated – thus anything that even if it was natural, yet unexplained – could be seen as a miracle. For example – in times before we understood solar or lunar eclipses ancient humans could have thought that the darkling effect was some sort of miracle from there (G) but, now that we know what it is, such claims have faded from view almost totally, (Although there might be some humans who still think this is true) so, where are the miracles? If we can never catch one and record it, or test it, or be sure about it – it is simply a possible naturalistic thing that happened that we do not understand and call a miracle?

Of course, for claims of miracles in the past – it is even more troublesome – the further back you go in time, the more things were not understood by humans, and the more miracles claims there are to be found in writings. So, the historian who looks at history, must do so with the critical question – they must employ skepticism – if we cannot be sure that any miracles take place – at all, serenely not today (since by definition we can never be sure that they do) then we ether would have to grant all writings about miracles as being totally true – or think that they are all possibly false. We do not – I repeat WE DO NOT assume naturalistic causes, all we can know from history is that the people at that time believed they encountered a miracle – and that as of today, having no example of actual miracles to compare it with, must conclude only that the people believed it. Whether or not it happened – we can only guess on, it would seem that if a miracle did occur in the present – due to the detention – it could be something we just do not understand – and then – if we did understand it, we could no longer call it a miracle. So, miracle claims in the past cannot be verified – and without any empirical data or tests to run to confirm them (something that by the defection of miracle cannot happen) we must be skeptical about them, and assume that they did not occur until we have data that suggests that they did.
So then, our concussion when employing critical questions on the idea of miracles is – they ether happen, and we can never be sure, or they do not happen at all, thus we are skeptical about them until we have further data on them.

-Evidence from archaeology-
Pots or clay, or tablets or writings, buildings and places are all things that one might dig up to confirm that something historical is true. What have we in fact found regarding any religions claims to support their claims? So far, I can only speak of the one religion I studied myself – my former religion of Christianity, and I found that there is no archaeological evidence other than a few buildings – and in one case of Nazareth there seems to be some hoax of fake finds in order to try to make the town be where they think it is, the archeology people found tombs under where one house was meant to be – for example, but the Jewish people would never build on a grave sight – so – we have at least one example of a counterfeit claim of archeology – and nothing else. At all. None of the miracles left any evidence at all, and no other evidence other than (some) of the buildings and places is found. It is possible, and in fact probable that whoever wrote the mythology of the christen narrative used real places for a back drop. So, we can only conclude what the evidence gives us – the buildings and some of the places existed. Unfortunately for the truth claim of this religion – archeology has been harsh both for the Old and New Testament of the bible. No worldwide flood, no DNA suggesting only two people birthing the whole human race, no evidence the Egyptians had Jewish slaves, no evidence of a mass migration across the desert.
So, no empirical evidence, no evidence for miracles, and no archeology evidence – what is left? I’m not sure since this claim is dependent on the past – something we cannot view today – then we must be skeptical of it – it is known that people wrote and believed in many myths and superstitions, and that pagan beliefs do line up very well with the christen new testament, as well as much of the old testament it would not have taken much for a few writers to popularize one made up man and begin a cult. It happened with the Mormons– although they are now called a religion – it seems Christianity too started from one story about someone who might not even exist, and grew to what it is today.
I could be wrong, but I have no other evidence to go on – thus I maintain we should be skeptical of such claims of this religion – and honestly, all others

-Where is (G)?-
Now, evidence aside, one last problem remains – where is (G) in all this?
Wars have been waged over (G) – why isn’t (G) intervening to correct us? Why does not (G) just stop in and say hello? Why can we not test (G) why is there no empirical evidence for (G)? Our questions about (G) are answered in different ways by different religions, but all in the end rely not on facts, but on a feeling – they feel (G) is real, so (G) must be real.
(G) used to be real for me as well, until I faced the facts and accepted them. I can only hope others will do the same.

-improbable numbers-
Improbity means nothing. If any event happens, it means nothing more than that event occurred - assigning numbers to the event to categories it as improbable numbers means nothing. Lightning strikes hit humans a certain percentage of time given the right (or wrong if you are the person stuck) conditions - but when a person is indeed hit by lighting - does that improbable event mean anything at all - no it only means it occurred, nothing more or less. Assigning huge numbers to events has been a favorite tactic of many apologists - it’s one in a billon chance that life would develop at all - or how improbable it is for DNA to forum "by chance" of course- evolution does not stand or fail on chance but we need not intrude real science into the talk as an apologist only needs to present the huge number then asks "how do we get here?" then offers (G) as the expiation. It just does not follow of course, but still the huge numbers are nothing more than a begging the question - "Its soooo improbable - must be (G)!"

-Nothing observable about (G)-
It seems odd that (G) would not leave any trace of itself upon our landscape - if (G) is truly interacting in some way, we should I think, see something to suggest this, yet - we see nothing of the sort and any miracle claims that we could examine in the present typically turn out to be actually uncommon natural occurrences, and we see no reason to think that miracles happened in the past. Since we observe no effects of any (G) we are reasonable to conclude that (G) does not in fact - interact at all with our landscape (world, environment, humans, etc.)
Perhaps some might say I am repeating myself - I've already said that (G) cannot be empirically verified- but surly there would be SOME way to find a hint of (G)? If not, why not - just seems strange to me.

-Problem of needless suffering-
This has been hammered and hammered by people who are skeptical of a LOVING and/or CARING (G) if a deity existed that Loved/Cared for humans and additionally had any power to do anything to help us - we would have to conclude that it would be doing something actively to help us, yet needless suffering contuses to abound.

Shifting this issue to that it is somehow mankind’s fault does not resolve the issue, if (G) made mankind then it is still (G) that failed to help mankind. Shifting the issue to say that we cannot know good without knowing bad does nothing to resolve the lack of action for deity that does nothing about our suffering - shifting to other excuses is just that - moving the goal post to explain away why the deity is not helping rather than just admitting the clear evidence -either the deity is not powerful enough to help, or it does not care enough to help - or both - or the deity does not exist at all.

-If not (G) then what?-
So offend the question of the person of the believer seems to be - if it is not (G) then why/how are we here - and the question is answered with a giant question mark. We do not know.
What is so wrong with not knowing?
Why can we not be satisfied with a mystery?
The other problem I see so often is a misuse of logic - one says that the other side must offer an alternative to (G) - but this simply is not true, even if I or no one had any augments for a positive (natural or other) alternative method of how/why the universe, atoms, stars, humans, and so on are here - that does not mean your idea wins by default. All naturalistic theories about cosmology are up for grabs - the difference between science and supernatural claims is one can be tested - the other can only be believed to be true, not shown to be true, not tested to be true, and not discovered to be true - it must be told - it must be believed, it must be hoped for.

I do not have the answer for "why" we are here if that is even a question at all- perhaps we just are. Perhaps we will never know what or how the universe came to be. Perhaps one day, we will - what then - the skeptics will have an answer, and those who believe in (G) will suggest that the skeptics are wrong, that (G) made the (X) that made the universe, shifting forever the goal post to finding (G) back further and further. Perhaps, who knows? Until that day however, I myself am content to not know; and to look for an answer - not with my mind, but with whatever facts I can find or others can find - not with mythology but with tools and tests. I shall not be afraid of the truth, no matter what it is, my duty is to the truth, to find it, and to accept it- whatever it might be.

Is (G) that truth? Many religious claim it is so - yet none can give us - humanity any benefit from this knowledge - (G) does not produce anything NEW - any new way to help us out of our current problems. If we could find (G) great - I'd accept it, whatever it was, and stand by it as truth, but so far - we have not found it - and perhaps - we cannot find it because it is not there to be found - perhaps (G) exists in our brains alone and is a testament to how powerful our imaginations are. I used to believe there was a (G), now I do not.
My hope is for you to question that you most hold dear, to do so is to begin to learn, to grow, and to change.

User avatar
playhavock
Guru
Posts: 1086
Joined: Thu Jun 07, 2012 10:38 am
Location: earth

Rebuttal to Austin's opening post.

Post #3

Post by playhavock »

austin12345 wrote:
My first argument is the Kalam Cosmological argument. The argument is as follows
1. Anything that begins to exist has a cause.
We do not know that "anything" (or everything) follows this rule (if it is a rule at all).

To be honest this premise should read "As far as we have observed, things that exist seem to have a cause."
2. The universe began to exist
Equivocation - the universe is not a "thing" (any-thing word denotes thing)
Secondly, the word "universe" could be seen as a vague term here.
Thrid, we are not sure this statment is true.
3. Therefore, the universe has a cause.
Does not follow. Since the above two premises are in question we must be skeptical of the conclusion.
The atheist to refute this argument
As a skeptic do I have to follow your format? It is a strawman to think your oppenent is something when they are not. I am a bit disapointed, I told my oppenent in pm that I was a skeptic, but since he is copying everything from Dr. Willam Lang's apolgitics page I supose he could not be bohtered to edit this bit of strawman out.

Pointing out this error does not dismantal my oppenents augment (actualy it is not his augment, I also asked him to make his own if possible, but he has chosen not to) but it does highlight that Lang is unable to think anyone who is agenst him is anything other then an atheist when they could be an agnostic, skeptic, naturalist, or even anther theist who just questions this augment.
Ex Nihilo Nihil Fit says that out of nothing nothing comes.
It is irrevelent what this quote says or who said it. What matters is only if it is true- we have - never as far as I know observed the state of "nothing" we can not then make any statments postive or negitve about said "nothingness".
To deny this fact would be to go against all metaphysical truths.
What ones are true, how do you know they are true, can you show them to be true, a list here would be usefull. This stament that "all metaphyisical truths" would somehow be denyed is without meening without clarifcation or proof that:
1 - they are true.
2 - they would be negated if nothingnes could bring about something.
Well to deny this would say that something comes from nothing. But this is not possible. For nothingness is not anything.
How do you know? We might think this is the case, but without any test or observation we should remain silenet on this issue, not assume things because we THINK they are true.
Well to deny the second would be going against all modern science. For example, in 2003 Arvin Borde, Alan Guth and Alexander Velinkin, were able to proof that any universe which has, on average been expanding in its existence is not infinite but finite it the past. This proof is so powerful because it stands true no matter the physical description of the earliest stages of the universe. It also holds even if our universe is just one of many in a multi-verse.
Again, there is a problem here - not all modern science agrees - cosmoligy is a feild unlike other fields, we are constantly looking at altertive explations for the universe, apealing to one or all sceintests seems to be nothing more then an ad populum and apeal to athority - having said that, Hawking has no issue with a universe that comes "from nothing" we just do not know yet.
The beginning of space time in the big bang
Not agreed on yet, and we do not know if time has a begining or has always existed. Or is even a thing at all.
The theory of general relativity
How does this apply?
The laws of thermodynamics
Irrevelent in our system - only relevent if the system is a closed system - the universe is not a closed system.
The last I will discuss is the Impossibilites of eternal time. It is impossible for a couple reasons.
1. To say time is eternal is a self contadiction. This is because that if it were eternal you could never get to this point in time. Why? Because there would be an infinite amount of time before us that could not have been traveled. Since this is not possible you could travel back as far as you wanted, to the highest concievable number yet time could never get there. This is because there would still be an infinite amount of time before that point you couldn’t travel. Hence, time would never exist. A good example of this is trying to count down from infinity to zero. You couldn’t even start. Whatever ever number you think of there is more.
I'll agree that anything eternal is impossible, including an eternal (G).

However, this reasioning about time is - as much of this analis, flawed. We simply have no way to know if time is - or is not - infinite. Simply because we think it might not be or can not make sence of how it would work if it was meens nothing.

2. The second improbability is that if time was eternal there would have to be an infinite number of past events. This is also impossible. One reason being what is infinity minus infinity. Well its infinity. Then say what is infinity minus the infinite amount of numbers greater than ten. Well the answer is ten. This shows infinity is not in reality, it is just a concept in your mind.
I'll agree that it shows that infinity and thus (G) being Infinite can only exist in your brain.
3. This following quote is from William Lane Craig about Hilbets Hotel and the impossibilities of infinity
Just to clarify - all of this is from Williams' sight or most of it - so far I've not read a single production of your own brain here, just copy and pasting - thats fine.
I'll still shred it with analisis, just making sure we are clear here - ALL of this (or most) is a quote from William Lane Craig. Not relevent to the topic, just want you to be honest with our readers.

I'll skip past all the rest of the infinity augments - they do not meen anything other then William thinks that infinity can not exist in reality other then his infinite/eternal (G) that exists in reality- well OUTSIDE reality - where (G) is immune to the same set of logic/laws as anything else.
2. The second argument is The moral argument for the existence of God. The argument is as follows:
1. If objective moral values do exist then God exists
2. Objective moral values do exist
3. Therefore God exists
This is so ciruclar that one could attach it to a car as a wheel.
Well what I mean by objective is something that is binding to everyone wether you believe in it or not.
If you do not belive in something how can you be binded by it?

I supose you are trying to say that it is a law/rule even if we are not aware of it we are still held accountable by said law if we break it - although unlike our laws where "not knowing it was a crime" is not a defence is understandable - we can not just take someone's word on this - (G) has the ablity to KNOW (read minds) what is in your brain, so could know that you had no idea that (X) was wrong, but will punnish you anyway. This is moraly bankrupt justice! It is not just at all.

However, even if it is true that morals are binding in this way, it does not meen anything other then morals are binding this way - it shows no external mind at work here.
Something that we all know to be right or wrong.
"All" - all humans? Socal paths do not know right from wrong. Mentalty handycap might have an issue with this as well - it seems that we "know" but yet ignore our knowalge - so what use is this knowalge? How can you show we ALL know something is right or wrong? What system are you using to prove this point to be true- are you just saying it in hopes we agree with it? This seems to be nothing more then an appeal to emotions.
The Bible says that ....
Circular logic. You must prove your bible is true first to quote from it or for it to be relevent.
The atheist has no grounds to think that things like rape, child abuse, killing your loved one is wrong.
More strawman.

Again, atheisem (atheists) is not a moral framwork - one must look at humanisem or some other system to gain a moral / ethical framework. So, this trys to make athest a thing - more of a relgion then what it is, but yes - athests do have grounds for thinking such things are wrong using verous moral/ethical systems.

However your deity of choice has no issue with ordering people to do the above or alowing them to do it, standing by and doing nothing as humans do this to each other.
They believe we are all animals.
We are all animals. This changes nothing!

Also it is intreging you know what we all belive.

More strawmaning here- "You belive we are all (X)" How can I know that?

But - we might just belive it because it is true. We are animals , what else would we be?
atheism these morals are just products of socio evolution and have no definite right or wrong.
More strawmaning, athesiem is not a system of morals or ethics - it is a word to explain one's position on (G) - nothing more or less, this is a posioning of the well, and we will see this happen again in this debate.
Micheal ruse Philosopher of science and biology says:
Irrevelent. Apeal to athority / novelty.

I do not see how this sighting of one person can show that morals are objective or that even if morals are objetive that this in some way shows that any (G) exists.
So on atheism ethics and morals do not exist.
Actualy, this is in essance - correct.

This is only correct because atheism is not about ethics or morals - it is only about not beliving in God/Gods. THATS IT.

It does not produce or provide a system of ethics or morals. So - our worthy oppenent Creig is using half truth here to make the athest seem like a villan of some sort. (posioning the well fallacy)
Another argument against Christianity is the problem of evil. But this in no way disproves God. This actually proves God! This is because without God there would be neither good nor evil. Since we recognize good and evil it follows it comes from God.
This augment has never made sence to me, even when I was a beliver. We have to have good to understand bad. I do not know if this is true - but , if it is we do not see (G) so we have no way to "see" what it is to be good - we do see things we call good, or bad. And we do so if there is or is not a (G).

This augment augues again, in a circle - because (G) exists good/bad exist, good/bad exist so (G) exists.

It fails logicaly.
My third Argument for the Existence of God is the Teleological argument. Recent scientific discoveries have shown the fine tuning of the universe right after the initial big bang for life to exist.
And... science fail.

Actualy life in this universe is counter intutive - there is a negive 1 engery yeld in the universe - bleep if I understand what that meens - but it meens it is VERY HARD for life to devolp, I wonder why thists use the "fine tuning" augment - rather then an honest augment , "Why see - the universe has -1 engery, and that makes it hard for life - yet here life is - that meens God!" well- perhaps because they want to distract us - (G) has to have made the universe "just so" for us - it cant be that we would be in a universe where life cant be... so if there is life in a universe, we expect to find that the universe can - suport life - now if we found that the universe could not suport life at all, then we would indeed have a mystery on our hands - one that would still not point to a (G) of any type, for all it would meen is we simply do not understand why it is so.

The diferance between sceince and theistic reasioning shows here again, one uses what facts it finds and contunes to try to explore with what is known, the other assumes all roads point to (G).

It gets worse though, for the whole of the "Fine tuning" makes the fallacy of begging the question "who tuned it?".
1. The fine tuning of the universe is either by law, chance or design
2. It is not by chance or Law
3. Therefore it is designed.
Even if I was to agree that it is "fine tuned" and I see no reasion to, this augument fails to suport premice two. It fails to account for the possiblity of universal evoultion (a theroy that some cosmolgisits are advancing) and thus, it would no longer be a D/S to conlcude its conclusion.

I'll be skiping the numbers that are presented in augment for the "fine tuning" because they are abertary extractions and do not withstand the critical questions, nor does the book referanced give us anything to go on here - are cosmoligists publishing peer reviewed papers about the "fine tuning" of the universe? No. This should make us skeptical that such a thing is indeed a thing at all, or simply an immagend augment by the apolgisit.
My fourth and last argument is the Resurrection of Jesus. Jesus in his life time made such extreme claims about himself being God, that he is YHWH incarnate.
Irrevelet.

Anyone can claim anything, where is the proof that they did what they claim?

Where is the referance to Jesus outside of the gosples?

Why is it that no historian documated him, referanced him, his followers, or even the darkening of the sky that is said to occur in the bible?

First - this augment assumes that Jesus is real - without proving he is, then it assumes we care what Jesus claims - in fact, we only have someone claiming to claim that Jesus claimed this - as Jesus could not bother to write down his own words, and we have contradicing claims to what Jesus said - so how can we know what he said at all?
To back it up he performed a ministy of Miracles.
None of them have any evedance to prove they happened. One must assume the bible is being honest with what happened in the past, we can not know that it is, and we must use the same critisem of ancent works that we do with all other historical referances of past - and indeed, the present as well - historans that are not biasid towards the bible must be just as skeptical of these mirical claims as any other claims from any other book of relgion. They are consedered to be mytholigy.

We must view all historical claims about magic/supernatural/miricals the same way, we can not grant specal treatment to any one book- yet, alas, the christan apoligist does just that. (so too do other apologists do the same for there myth books)
But the final Confirmation of his claims is the Resurrection from the Dead
That there is zero evedance for.
Many people do not believe that there are many facts to back this claim up, but, there are indeed four major facts agreed upon by the Majority of all scholars, whether Christians or Skeptics.
No there are not 4 major facts that are agreed upon by the "majority of all scholars" and I think you left out the bit when Creig typicaly says they are "New Testoment Scholars" not just a "scholar" in general.

This statment fails not only because it is a lie - no skeptic agrees with the "4 facts" that I am aware of - I sertenly do not, but even if the majority belives (X) THAT DOES NOT MAKE (X) TRUE. This is nothing more then an apeal to popularity and an apeal to expert opionin. Two fallacys for the price of one!

Ah so there we have it.

The classic Creig filtered though my worthy oppenent. I must admit I am a bit irrated that he did not produce a new augment, but this is his choice to not do this, I really was hoping for something I have not seen. Every augument is flawed on one or more premices and we must be skeptical of the conclusions they produce.
The verous strawmen and posining of the well are not my oppenents falt, he is just copying the "style" of Crieg - I implore my oppenent to think for himself and come up with his own augments agenst my opening statment.

I want others who read this to note that I am fine with my oppenent not using his own augments, I started there myself when I was learning apolgitics and then moved on to studying for myself the "facts" that those apolgitists had ready answers for!

If my oppenent does that he is in for a suprise.

The facts beat out mytholigy of all types from Christantiy to Hinduism. From Muslam to Mormans. The facts bear out that we have a universe, and we know very little about it thus far, but we are learning more and more about it - the (G) explation explains nothing, produces nothing, and stops good people from THINKING about things, it makes them fearfull of evoultion and other facts of nature.

It teaches them to use logic in a way that it should not be used, logic is not a tool for discovering what is true - only for what is logicaly sound. (G) does not seem to be logicaly sound.

As for it being true - I still have plenty of reasions to suspect that it is not true, but we shall see what sort of defence can be raised, if any - to my objections.

austin12345
Apprentice
Posts: 127
Joined: Fri Jul 13, 2012 6:05 pm

Post #4

Post by austin12345 »

First off the first part of your opening statement was in no way an argument against God. It is not needed in this debate so I will not address these. No it doesnt mean I dont have a rebuttal because I do. I am going to first address your rebuttals.
By the way I did not copy much off of Craigs website. I have learned arguments from him but I didnt copy other than were I quoted that he quoted from others.

If you say "We do not know that "anything" (or everything) follows this rule (if it is a rule at all). "
You are contradicting ex nihilo nihil fit. This as you know is out of nothing nothing comes. It shows that nothing can just pop into existence.
Two reasons why
1. Nothingness is no potentialities no properties no powers. It is not anything so it cannot come into being.
2. You are not worried that a horse is going to pop into existence behind you right now uncaused. Thats because it is not possible.

In regards to the universe not being a thing, what is it then? It is obviously something a thing and by universe I mean all space-time.

Most all science asserts a beging to the universe such as the bord guth velinkin theorem, the big bang , law of thermodynamics, general relativity, and other philosophical evidence which I assume you remember I presented to you already.

So therefore three follows
It was not straw man in the sense of normal straw man because a straw man was attacking an argument without really attacking it. Second I wasnt assuming your atheist. I meant any skeptic.
I didnt copy everything so you know.
I have argument but never put it up to skepticism so I will use it later for you.

I discussed that Nothingness is not anything so it cannot produce anyhting.

I was not appealing to ad populum that would be to base an argument from a person of authority I am using it to back my argument.

The other theorys such as string theory or multi verse theory are flaunt with problems and the bord guth velenkin theory stands independent off this saying that any universe in a rate of constant expansion has to begin.

I offered evidence to show that time had to have a beggining in my opening speech not refuted yet.

The Theory of Relativity shows the expansion of the universe backing up the big bang and begginning of the universe.

Two things about the Theory of Thermodynamics.
1. It is very relavint. It shows that the universe will run out of energy and blow up. So if it was eternall loggically it would have blown up already, even furthur never began because it would have infinite time before and would blow up.

2. Obviously I dont know you personnaly but most skeptics believe that the universe is a closed system. You stating that the universe is open backs the Theist view better.

Something Eternal that transcends time is not impossible. God can eternally exist outside Time.
Also you contradict yourself

"I'll agree that anything eternal is impossible, including an eternal (G).

However, this reasioning about time is - as much of this analis, flawed. We simply have no way to know if time is - or is not - infinite. Simply because we think it might not be or can not make sence of how it would work if it was meens nothing."


Since you said it cannot be impossible that means you agree it began. Also show me something that makes my reasoning flawed because I dont see one flaw in it. I showed it began so dont have pressupositions, rebuke my statements.

I want you to be honest and not have ad hominins. I didnt quote hardly any of what I typed. I have read and watched alot of his stuff as well as ross and lennox and others and have done considerable amounts of thinking about it myself. I only really copied the hilberts hotel part.

If a God creates laws he is independent of them so go ahead give your best shot at refutting them.

You are binded becasue it is written on our hearts to guide human beings.

The argument is not if its just about God's position but about marals for men. But yes it is just if we sin, "For the punishment of sin is death but the gift of God is eternal life through Christ Jesus our Lord." Romans 6:23


The person who says killing or raping is just morally blind. Like the person who says 1+1=5. Also if you have a relationship with somebody and you love them dearly then suddenly somebody kills them, all know that is wrong.

Show the whole quote for the Bible says

How about I say the non theist. Not atheist.

YOu say
" athests do have grounds for thinking such things are wrong using verous moral/ethical systems. "
Without evidence this is not valid.
My point in being animals is that we are no better or worse than other animals with no different morals.

"More strawmaning, athesiem is not a system of morals or ethics - it is a word to explain one's position on (G) - nothing more or less, this is a posioning of the well, and we will see this happen again in this debate. "
All I am saying is the belief in athiesm cannot account for our morals.
Without any evidence against we are to hold this true.

Micheal russ's quote is not irrelavent. What you are basically saying is that I cannot quote people who have studied more than me without being accused or fallacies. I am not basing arguments on what he says but using to back an argument. Also if you dont use others work it is alot harding to learn.

Again show that ethics dont exist or else we have good grounds believing they do.

If there is not Good there is not bad and vic versa. God could have created all things morally neutral but didnt so its not cyclical. But since good and bad do exist all Im saying is that it shows moralls. These moralls are grounded only in God.

Fine Tuning
Obviously im no scientist but what I have been saying is the level of fine tuning for life is miraculous which shows God.

I defended premise two already in my first post but the evolution of the universe hypothesis does not account for fine tuning. My argument is for the initiall moments after the big bang. Evolution would be a slow process. If the first millisecond wasnt perfect life couldnt evolve and the universe would collapse on itself.

People are posting peer reviews in many places. You not giving evidence for this but for exapmle go to scientific america they have articles about it.

The reference outside Gospels to Jesus is found in Josephus, pagan writings of the time and Jewish writings. If he hadnt existed than there would have been writings against his existence of the time because of there numbers and power but there wasnt.

About the contradictions, there is not one contradiction in Scripture that cant be answered within pristen quality and clarity.

the Gospel writers have a track record through archelogy of being historically accurate. The (skeptic) bears the burden of proof to try to show which of the pieces of the scriptures is not true. Until then it holds. I want prrof or atleast arguments against the reliability and Jesus not opinions.

The Resurrection facts are held to by most all scholars who have studied this. You say that is not true but again nothing to back it up. These facts hold unless you give reasons why they are not true.

How about a new argument from perfection
1. IF man is able to know perfection, there has to be something perfect to back it up
2. man does know what perfection is
3. Therefore there is something perfect
This perfect being is the Trinity of God.

The reason theses argument are used is because no skeptic has been able to refute them with any certanty.

I realy resent you saying I copied Craig Because outside of my quotes I didnt copy I have been influenced by him but I didnt copy Them.

About mythology Again without even arguemtns about it being mythology it has no grounds to think it is. Especially the very early dating of the Gospels. Mythology to form has to take 150-200 years. But the Gospels and all New Testament writing wre withing 90.

Evolution doesnt scare me. That is not related to the Topic and also does not exist but that is another debate. But in regards to out knowing about the universe most all recent progression has been growing towards evidence to Theism












God is by definition the Highest conceptual being and perfect and athetic.
Science cannot prove God because it only measures the universe God lies outside. Besides this science itself is Faith because it cannot be proven itself.

The fact that all religions are different just shows that they cant all be true but doesnt show one cant.


In regard to humes argument about miracles it is very problematic. One argument against it that he himeself says is wrong though not exactly what you stated is that if a king from the equater sent men to the north pole and they came back and said " water can exist in a solid" Hume says dont believe them. Why? because he never saw it. That doesnt mean it isnt true. So just because you have never seen a miracle or they cant be proven doesnt mean they dont exist.

With regards to archeology many current Jewish places have built of grave sites. For example the Church of the Holy Sepulcher and many others. Also most all modern archeology had backed up Biblical data. I dont have time to go into detail so seek the truth yourself. But for example Noah's ark found, and the walls off jericho have been discovered to been knocked down. Not only that been feel outwards.

Ive addressed your mythology already, bult on your mind set and opinions but no proof.

Ive also adrressed suffering. If anything else you want answered let me know

User avatar
playhavock
Guru
Posts: 1086
Joined: Thu Jun 07, 2012 10:38 am
Location: earth

Post #5

Post by playhavock »

austin12345 wrote: First off the first part of your opening statement was in no way an argument against God. It is not needed in this debate so I will not address these.
Some of my opening was ment to explain what we are doing to the readers, but I made meny augments in it that I find odd you would not object to. Well, I supose all augments I made stand since you do not refute them.
By the way I did not copy much off of Craigs website. I have learned arguments from him but I didnt copy other than were I quoted that he quoted from others.
Fair enough - I do not wish to quibble over such matters, let us alow this matter to rest.
If you say "We do not know that "anything" (or everything) follows this rule (if it is a rule at all). "
I do say this.
You are contradicting ex nihilo nihil fit. This as you know is out of nothing nothing comes. It shows that nothing can just pop into existence.
I am aware of this statment - but it is a stament found not in science - that I am conserned with - this is to say, it has not been observed to be true.

We can not, in my view, say anything about "nothing" since we have not yet observed said "nothing" we are then making statments about something we can not know anything about - mear guess work in my view.

Also it seems you are quite happy with (G) not having a cause, yet existing. If (G) is a thing then it too would have to have a cause, but specal pleeding saves it from having to follow the rule. Intreging that (G) gets to break the rules you set forth.
Two reasons why
1. Nothingness is no potentialities no properties no powers. It is not anything so it cannot come into being.
I can not speak to what nothing is - a state of zero everything, or is a a state of pontental everything - who knows - I have read that some scientiests do think that something can come from said "nothing" or that "nothing" is not a thing at all - it is an idea in our brains and never to be found in reality - that the "nothing" we assume or think might have been "before" (if such a word applys) to the universe might have been something - but it might not be. The problem is, we just have no idea.

My point is that, only if the facts show that it is indeed "nothing" then this is what we must conclude - the facts do not currenlty to my knowalge bear this out, only that I will go wherever the facts take me, even if the fact points to something that makes no sence to me, I will accept it as - well - fact.
2. You are not worried that a horse is going to pop into existence behind you right now uncaused. Thats because it is not possible.
Well - if there is a (G) it could make a horse pop into existance behind (or in front of) me right now, and that would - if repeatable - perhaps become a test we could use to prove (G)'s existance. However, perhaps as you said, such a thing is impossible. However - the problem with this idea is that the air around me is a "something" and that even in outerspace - there are "something" that is - engery, gravity, dust, etc. So - the example fails to show that "nothing" can not produce something because you did not referance "nothing" you referance empty space around a person - and that emptiy space is actualy filled with air, dust, particals of light , etc. So it is far from being "nothing".
In regards to the universe not being a thing, what is it then?
I do not know.

Some say the universe is a collection of engery, mass, particals, planets, phyiscs and other things, others say that a universe is "all that there is or will be" and others have other defentions of universe - this is why I sugested that the word "universe" is perhaps too vague to use - however - I do not think the universe falls into the catagory of a "thing" - I could be wrong, but I would have to see proof of this being true.
It is obviously something a thing and by universe I mean all space-time.
Is space and time real or just in our brains?
Time is a complex idea, and we could debate time's existance, but I'm not sure where I would start.

Space is a messuring device - but it is also space - as in outerspace. But are these ideas and concepts "objects" in the classical sence? I am not sure. I have no objection to you showing us how they are objects rather then ideas in our brains.
Most all science asserts a beging to the universe such as the bord guth velinkin theorem, the big bang , law of thermodynamics, general relativity, and other philosophical evidence which I assume you remember I presented to you already.
And again, I recall no sighting of "most" scientests who assert the universe having a begining - please list them off and sight what papers they say this in for review.
I have argument but never put it up to skepticism so I will use it later for you.
Intreging, I look forward to deconstructing it. I do hope you understand skeptic meens "investagator" not simply one who doughts things.
I discussed that Nothingness is not anything so it cannot produce anyhting.
How do we know? - If we have never observed nothingness I do not think we can say anything about it - at all. Perhaps it can or can not produce things. I have no idea.
I was not appealing to ad populum that would be to base an argument from a person of authority I am using it to back my argument.
I assume you are refering to my verous dismantlig of augments you put forward - an apeal to popularity does occure in much of what you write, and an appeal to experts / athority is also at hand. But - I am not sure what you are defending - but just saying that "it is not a fallacy" is not defending your points - you can not simply assert you did not make a fallacy when one asserts you have, you must show the oppenent (me) to be in error.
The other theorys such as string theory or multi verse theory are flaunt with problems and the bord guth velenkin theory stands independent off this saying that any universe in a rate of constant expansion has to begin.
What problems are they flaunt with?

It is intreging how any and all possiblitys that might exist (but yours) must not be true or must have some sort of flaw.

Again, the diferance of one who has no position of faith and thus, no emotion attached to (G) consept, I can go wherever the evedance leads, cosmoligy is a field in science, but you seem to wish to take it out of there and place it squarely in the relm of the philosopy where you can toy with it as you wish, in philosophy all is possible, but here you run into a problem - you have left science the thing that can study how the universe works, make perdictions based on theroys, and test them, and so on - and gone to a conclsuon that is outside of science - a concusion one can only find in the philosophic relm.

This is in essace - the problem with the KCA and other cosmoligcal augments - they start by using science, then stop at some point and begin to do philosophy and we are asked to take the ride, but I must ask to get off as soon as you stop doing science.

Science can and does explore the very question you are asking - but we do not know - we have a number of theroys - theroys that we can test - yet your theroy is not a theroy at all, and we all know it - for (G) can never, ever be tested. So I ask again, what exactly do you scienticaly see flaws in the other theroys - are you able to write a paper - get it pier reviewed and published - most likely not - I could not do it, neather of us is qualifyed - are we not then making an augment of ignorace to talk about such things?

I am not sure- what I can say, is that based on those who do study such things is the issue is far - FAR from resolved - mearly saying "there are problems..." does nothing to forward your augment.

Even if there were ZERO theroys about how the universe begain (if it began at all) you will still have no proof and a flawed augment for how you want to think it started. In essance the KCA boils down to "God dun it". of coure, I've labered to deconstruct it better then this statment, but you have not yet attacked my deconstruction.

What you have done, so far - here in this sentince is to say that other theroys are full of problems , and not identify them, explain them, or sight them.

You are up agenst actual sciencts here - concvince them your theroy is right - or even deserves to be a thery at all. I will save you the trouble, for few scientests - even amonst the cosmoligists - belive in a (G) and you would be hard pressed to find one that belives in the (G) you think is real. And if they did belive in (G) - I do not think we would see evedance or a sceintific augment for (G) - the KCA is not science, but it uses it whenever convient - and drops it when incovent.
I offered evidence to show that time had to have a beggining in my opening speech not refuted yet.
What is time?

You offer only an augment - not evedance - to sugest that it (if we agree with your premices) is logicaly possible.

I did indeed show the flaws in it, mainly the issue is we are using conjecture- not evedance - to get to our answer - and I am asking if we can know this is true. My stance is we can not know if it is true or false using only logic, since we have no evedance for time or when it began or if it begain or even if time is a thing or just an object of the brain, my conclusion is we must be skeptical about any conjectures regarding it because we do not have any objects to look at, observe, test or so on.
The Theory of Relativity shows the expansion of the universe backing up the big bang and begginning of the universe.
I am not sure it shows a "beginning". Referance?
Two things about the Theory of Thermodynamics.
1. It is very relavint. It shows that the universe will run out of energy and blow up. So if it was eternall loggically it would have blown up already, even furthur never began because it would have infinite time before and would blow up.
2. Obviously I dont know you personnaly but most skeptics believe that the universe is a closed system. You stating that the universe is open backs the Theist view better.
The universe is an open system - in that it has no "end" as far as space goes. The problem here, as I see it - is not that stars we observe will end - of that I have no question - but new stars are devolping all the time.

What you are asking however, is if all of everything has a start in the singularty of the big (expantion) bang. (expantion defines it better then bang) - I do not know, there might have been more then one, you might be right and the universe will run itself out and "bang" again, or grow cold and at some distant time the atoms will lose all there pull and disapate into nothingness - and we will have nothing - utter nothing.

I have no idea - could be that the nothing will produce a new universe, or the universe will produce a new universe if it bangs - or that it will all be sucked into a giant black hole - who knows! Thats the essance of exploration that we can do with science, we can look at what we can look at and test ideas out, but we might never know in meny cases because direct observation is impossible. I do not know what skeptics you are refering to (referances?) but how does an open universe sugest a theistic system?
Something Eternal that transcends time is not impossible. God can eternally exist outside Time.
Sure, your (G) is the specal exepction to the rule. (Specal pleeding at work here!)

WHY?
HOW can something exist outside time?
How can you know?
Where would it exist?
Also you contradict yourself
"I'll agree that anything eternal is impossible, including an eternal (G).
However, this reasioning about time is - as much of this analis, flawed. We simply have no way to know if time is - or is not - infinite. Simply because we think it might not be or can not make sence of how it would work if it was meens nothing."
Since you said it cannot be impossible that means you agree it began.
I do indeed contradict myself. But I do not agree that it began in the way you sugest because you change the meening of begin so offen that it is hard for me to know what you meen when. If anything eternal is impossible - including (G) then nothing is eternal. Including time. Including the universe. However - I do not know how it began or if it begain - that is to say, I simpley do not understand enough about sceince to make a statment on the singulary or how it functions, here I meet my limmit of my own knowalge and I fully admit my ignorance in the matter. I simply do not know.

But, I am trying to be a bit troublesome - I am agreeing in jest - I would agree that anything inlcuding (G) being eternal is impossible - there is a hidden IF - if we do agree upon that fact, then I might be willing to agree that the universe has a start - but I have to be given the evedance and explation of this said start and the way we get there must be the same all the way though, so if we use science to deside this at the start, we must use science at the end. Sceince as far as I know is still trying to unravel this question.
Also show me something that makes my reasoning flawed because I dont see one flaw in it. I showed it began so dont have pressupositions, rebuke my statements.
You reasion that the univere's cause must be something that you can not prove to exist. I reasion that the universe's cause if any is unknown.

I come to my concluion based on evedance, not augments. You come to yours because of an augemnt you have read and are convinced is correct.

My only burdan is to show the logical failings of these augments, nothing more or less. I have no conclusion - I do not know how the universe begain, or if it began at all. I am mearly pointing out that your logic is flawed, and thus we must be in dought about the conclusion.
I want you to be honest and not have ad hominins. I didnt quote hardly any of what I typed. I have read and watched alot of his stuff as well as ross and lennox and others and have done considerable amounts of thinking about it myself. I only really copied the hilberts hotel part.
Again, willing to drop this issue - it is not an attack agenst you - I am pointing out to the readers that most of what you say is from Creig, I too wathced Lennox - I might have missed Ross on my study of apolgitics. But there augments are flawed - thus when you use them, your augments become flawed.

It is fine to use other peoples ideas and make your own ideas from them - there is nothing wrong with this - an ad homin attack would be if I said that you are wrong or your points are wrong because you are a copycat. Or that we should not think of you in such a such way because you are not producing anything new - or so on. My effort is to cause you to do what I did - to look beound the apolgitics out there and invistage yourself into history and science and logic and see what you find. I want others to do this as well.
If a God creates laws he is independent of them so go ahead give your best shot at refutting them.
If (G) makes law (X) (G) does not have to obay (X)...?

Refute what ones? I'll gladly give it a go, but I am not sure what you are refering to here.
You are binded becasue it is written on our hearts to guide human beings.
As far as I know, no human heart has been found that contains writing on it.
The argument is not if its just about God's position but about marals for men. But yes it is just if we sin, "For the punishment of sin is death but the gift of God is eternal life through Christ Jesus our Lord." Romans 6:23
Prove the bible is true before quoting from it.
How do you know what (G)'s position is on morals or ethics?
What is sin?
Why is sin a thing?
The person who says killing or raping is just morally blind.
I do not understand this. A person who says "killing" or "raping" is moraly blind? How is saying something wrong - you meen doing? I'm not sure what you are trying to augue at this point. Please clarify.
Also if you have a relationship with somebody and you love them dearly then suddenly somebody kills them, all know that is wrong.
I do not know if "all know" it is wrong - but we can assume that most people would be upset at such an event, not all however, everyone's brain functions in vast and difernet ways.

In fact- there was a woman who drowened her own childern because she belived that the childern would go to heven. Is she sad about this? I do not know, but it should be clear from events such as this that people do not always seem to "know" what is wrong.

Sorce:
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/15672017/ns ... kids-case/

Show the whole quote for the Bible says
What are you refering to - ? I do not think I referance the (christan) bible...?
How about I say the non theist. Not atheist.
I call myself skeptic, I would like you to do the same for me, if you are directing your augments agenst someone else then you are free to catagorise them as you see fit.
YOu say
" athests do have grounds for thinking such things are wrong using verous moral/ethical systems. "
I did say this.
Without evidence this is not valid.
Intreging. What grounds does anyone have for thinking things are wrong - well - do we have emperical evedance- yes - we can see what results are by verous culutres and such, and we can look at what morals those cultures and people had that landed in verous results. We can compair history and look at how peoples ethics and morals effected choices they made.

Then we can construct a choice to what our goals will be - what are our goals - do we want less suffering - do we want more freedoms - and so on. So on the evedance of how morals effect people in general we can consctruct a frame work to go on - depending what goals we set of course.
My point in being animals is that we are no better or worse than other animals with no different morals.
How do you know animals do not have morals or ethics - or emotions that could lead to the devolpment of said morals/ethics?

Dog saves life of dog:


Gorilla saves a kid who fell into the cage at a zoo:


Koko (gorralla) crys over the death of her pet kitten:



Perhaps morals and/or emotions (that lead to make morals) are devolved by all animals to greater or lesser degrees, and we humans being animals have brains that took them futher then others - so far.

All I am saying is the belief in athiesm cannot account for our morals.
This is because athisem is a non-belife system. It is not one that says where morals or ethics comes from, it makes no claims in this regard.
Perhaps you are after the naturalist?
Without any evidence against we are to hold this true.
That morals are objective unless we have evedance that they are subjective?

(I really need better clarifcation on what point you are refuting here)
What if morals are both subjective and objective?
Micheal russ's quote is not irrelavent. What you are basically saying is that I cannot quote people who have studied more than me without being accused or fallacies.
Not at all. The augment will stand or fail no matter who you quote.
I am not basing arguments on what he says but using to back an argument. Also if you dont use others work it is alot harding to learn.
True. You show great strides to learn, and that is good. However, I would say to look not at those who agree with you - but those who disagre with you, what do they say and why - what are there augments and evedance if any? What system do they use - do they have a point - if so what is it?
Again show that ethics dont exist or else we have good grounds believing they do.
I think ethics do exist - in our brains, I do not know if they exist out side our brains - this would have to be shown.
If there is not Good there is not bad and vic versa. God could have created all things morally neutral but didnt so its not cyclical. But since good and bad do exist all Im saying is that it shows moralls. These moralls are grounded only in God.
How do you know? What is "good" or "bad" - why are they "grounded" in (G) - in what way are they grounded in (G)?

Fine Tuning
Obviously im no scientist but what I have been saying is the level of fine tuning for life is miraculous which shows God.
[/quote]

Why is it miraculous - if it is at negitve one engery that is bad news for life. Life only is on our small planet as far as we know - why is so much of the planet itself and the solar system and universe life-prohibiting? How does any of this show (G)?
I defended premise two already in my first post but the evolution of the universe hypothesis does not account for fine tuning.
There is no "fine tuning" this word is a made up word... but non the less - evoultion of universe hypothesis would account for the universe functioning in the most stable way possible - and if that way happens to permit life then it would do so.
My argument is for the initiall moments after the big bang. Evolution would be a slow process. If the first millisecond wasnt perfect life couldnt evolve and the universe would collapse on itself.
I'll have to dig out the theroys of universal evoultion - it is not my field - but it is a possibltiy.
People are posting peer reviews in many places. You not giving evidence for this but for exapmle go to scientific america they have articles about it.
You are going to have to do better then that. Give your refernaces or drop the assertions.
The reference outside Gospels to Jesus is found in Josephus, pagan writings of the time and Jewish writings. If he hadnt existed than there would have been writings against his existence of the time because of there numbers and power but there wasnt.
Where in Josephus? (sorce?)

What pegan writings? (sorce?)

If he did not exist at the time the modern historans of his time would not have writen agenst the cult of christanity - in fact, christanity did not get mentioned until far AFTER the events of the time - so - plenty of time to devolp as a cult and grow and write and speak there mytholigy.
About the contradictions, there is not one contradiction in Scripture that cant be answered within pristen quality and clarity.
How meny angels are there and how meny women are there when they go to find Jesus at the tomb? Do the women report there findings or not?
the Gospel writers have a track record through archelogy of being historically accurate.
Where is the proof?
The (skeptic) bears the burden of proof to try to show which of the pieces of the scriptures is not true.
False.

Shifting of burdan. You the one who claims this is true has the burdan. We do not have the burdan to show something is false.
Until then it holds. I want prrof or atleast arguments against the reliability and Jesus not opinions.
You want proof or an augment aginst the relialbity of a copyed book from 2000 years ago whos writings we can not verify empericaly or test at all? ... Well sir, how about the fact that there is no way we can verify it as one augument agenst it - as far as it being relyable - the burdan is on you to show it IS true.

Jesus as far as I know - never existed. I could be wrong, but I have nothing to go on to think I am.

You can not prove a negitve - you can give reasions to supect this is not the case - I think that the lack of any writings of anyone about Jesus outside of the gosples themselfs is very strong agenst there being such a figure.

I also think that Jesus's words and deeds being so close to other pegan myths is not to be dismissed so easy as you wish it to be.

The problem is we are dealing with a writing of people who belived in strange things - and we have not a single way to verify that these events happened at all. We must hold all writings that claim supernatual events with the same standards - we can not specal pleed for those we want to be true. Your bible - like all other bibles - claims things that we can not verify at all.
The Resurrection facts are held to by most all scholars who have studied this. You say that is not true but again nothing to back it up. These facts hold unless you give reasons why they are not true.
Most or all? By scholars I assume you meen New Testoment scolars? When do I say that this is untrue- I say that the "facts" are not true. I say this because there are no facts to be true. It matters not what those who study the New Testoment agree upon. - To think this would logicaly imply that those who are scholars of any other relgous book or books who hold there facts to be true would also be true. Specal pleeding for your relgion.
How about a new argument from perfection
1. IF man is able to know perfection, there has to be something perfect to back it up
2. man does know what perfection is
3. Therefore there is something perfect
One more wheel I can attach to my circular logic wheeled car. Two more and I'll be able to drive in circles!

I don't know what perfection is or even if I can know it.
The reason theses argument are used is because no skeptic has been able to refute them with any certanty.
I think I just did. The reasion you use augments is you have no evedance to go on.
I realy resent you saying I copied Craig Because outside of my quotes I didnt copy I have been influenced by him but I didnt copy Them.
Resent all you wish, I know most of his augment from memory - perhaps you wrote it yourself after memorising it - again a moot point - again I will drop this point - I only want you to think for yourself and go outside of the apolgitists to study. :)
About mythology Again without even arguemtns about it being mythology it has no grounds to think it is.
Given above - the reasion we think that it is - is the reasion we think that all mytholigy is. We must have the same standards across the board for consedering any histroical claims.
Especially the very early dating of the Gospels. Mythology to form has to take 150-200 years. But the Gospels and all New Testament writing wre withing 90.
The augment of "not enough time" is a non-augment. Myth does not take long to devolp. Look at the Scientoligsts for a modern day example. Look at the Mormans for an example. Look at any cult to see that myth can devolp quickly.
Evolution doesnt scare me. That is not related to the Topic and also does not exist but that is another debate.
Evoultion is as true as gravity. I'm sorry you have been told it is untrue or read that is the case. I am glad it does not scare you personaly, I would emploe you to study it.

However, using your logic from before - recall that you said that I should accept that the universe has a start because most if not all scientests agree with this, now using your own logic- most scientests agree that evoultion is a fact - so by your own reasioning you would have to accept that evoultion is a fact - even if you refuse to study it.

Using your own system of logic.

Granted, I am doughtfull that your claims are true or correct as cosmoligy is just not my field and so have been asking for sorces - but my primary motive is not to dismiss that the universe had a start - for all I know this is the reasionable logical conclusion - but my point is to dismantal the flawed logic I see going on with meny of the augments. What I do not see is a consistant questioning - you on one hand say with sertenty that the universe has a start, but on the other hand deny what scinece says on evoultion - I find that to be illogical.

Still - we must admit that using your own system of logical reasioning I question why you would question evoution being true but not the universe having a start - eather you are going to accept what all or meny scientest agree with or not - why make specal exeptions?
But in regards to out knowing about the universe most all recent progression has been growing towards evidence to Theism
I do not see that being the case - where is all the evidence? So far you have a handful of bad logical augments, but no direct evedance to link it to anything.
You might belive that it is giving you the conclusion you want - this would be called confermation bias.
God is by definition the Highest conceptual being and perfect and athetic.
That is one definition of it - there are others.
I'm not sure that we can define something into existance however.
Science cannot prove God because it only measures the universe God lies outside.
Good place to hide out. :) How do you know that there IS anything beound or "outside" the universe?
Besides this science itself is Faith because it cannot be proven itself.
It is proven. We have apple proof of it. You would not be able to enter this message or read my message without it working. Science produces results - (G) does not.
The fact that all religions are different just shows that they cant all be true but doesnt show one cant.
You are correct - one might be correct - or they all might be false. I lean to that they are all false. But one must show that they are correct. Odd that (G) never bothers to tell us what one is correct.
In regard to humes argument about miracles it is very problematic. One argument against it that he himeself says is wrong though not exactly what you stated is that if a king from the equater sent men to the north pole and they came back and said " water can exist in a solid" Hume says dont believe them. Why? because he never saw it. That doesnt mean it isnt true. So just because you have never seen a miracle or they cant be proven doesnt mean they dont exist.
I am not sure I am using Humes arugment - however - I do use the augment that miricals can never be identifyed. Simply saying that they might exist - is like saying that lepercans might exist. Same thing. Big foot is out there - and he is blurry!
With regards to archeology many current Jewish places have built of grave sites. For example the Church of the Holy Sepulcher and many others. Also most all modern archeology had backed up Biblical data.
Sorce please.
I dont have time to go into detail so seek the truth yourself.
You do not have time to go into detail? You do not have time to quote sorces?
Then, leave the debate in defeat sir. If you have no time for this debate, perhaps you should not enter it. There is no time limmitation.
Perhaps your claims do not have any sorce for them to sight. In light of that you give no suport for much of what you say latter, and since you say here you do not "have the time" then we must hold your claims to be in doubt.
I have as you put it - saught the truth - and my findings have made me a skeptic. This statment seems to be a "cop out".
But for example Noah's ark found,
Really?
When? Where?

(its been "found" several times dear readers, all have been latter found to be forgerys or latter to disaper, none have withstood any analisis)
and the walls off jericho have been discovered to been knocked down.

Sorce?
Not only that been feel outwards.
Sorce?
Ive addressed your mythology already, bult on your mind set and opinions but no proof.
Yes, thank you for telling my my mind is set.

I have opionions yes- proof - for what?

I've been auguging that my buran is only to show you have logical fallacys- I do not sugest the universe is made from a natural thing/object/sorce - I do not sugest it is made from "nothing" I sugest rather we have no idea WHAT or HOW or WHEN or WHY it is here, if it is made or if it just is - we do not have these facts. We have ideas, theroys, and augments - to be sure we have augments!

We all have views, my view is that analising things is a good thing to do - it produces results.

I do not run away from facts - I want to know more about them, I yearn to explore and learn - and I aproch things with questions - not answers. "I do not know" is my answer. It is my theroy. I am testing it - do I not know - why - yes, it seems I do not. Now what shall I do?

I shall learn - explore, and see if things are true or not. I will look at evedance and analise. Do I have proof - proof of what sir? What would you want me to prove - I can show you that your logic is flawed - this is not proof but it is just using the system of logic. If we are talking about proofs then we are not talking in the relm of logic - we are talking in the relm of science - for it is that relm that can prove or disprove things. Logic , as I have said - can only conclude with us thinking something is logicaly valad.
Ive also adrressed suffering. If anything else you want answered let me know
I think that needless suffering is not answered by the (G) theroy. If (G) cares and has power why does it not help us? Eather it does not care or does not have the power.

Humans, we do the best we can (some of us granted not all) to help those in need - why does not (G) who has so much more power then us help us out?
There will always be questions dear oppenent, if you can spare the time I have plenty.

I think however, we gave each other a chance to rebutal each other's opening - and first rebutal. You then have a chance to rebutal this rebutal as I have rebutaled your opening and your first rebutal.

Opening / Opening
Rebuttal to opening (I'm done)
Rebuttal to opening (you are done)
Rebuttal to first retuttal (this post I have done so)
then it would be your turn at bat for your Rebuttal.

Then - I belive we said we would have a closing statment. Otherwise I supose we could be here forever doing this :D

(I cant find the revelent pm about this - let me know if I am in error)

I do hope that you take the time to give your sorces for what you are writing - it is a negtive rule in the type of dialoge we are in to tell your oppenent to go look for it themselfs - if you can not find the time to do that - then you must (By rules of logic) drop the ideas you are saying are true if you are not willing to give the sorce for them (or able due to time constrant)

If I seem harsh it is because I press forward with how logic works - if I rub you
the wrong way, pause for a moment to conseder why - do I make a point - is it fair for you to tell me to "go look for the truth" and not give me any sorce for what you are claiming to be true? Or is it fair for me to think you would present me with the sorce for what you are saying so I can check it myself? Think about this.

(Do note, dear readers - that yes -we are off the beaten path for a persanary type
dialouge - and I think that, in this case - that is fine - I am trying to teach logic by example and critical thinking - I do not know if I will teach it or not - I can only do my best to try in what way I know how.)

Looking forward to reading your rebutal and closing - and I do hope to read sightings you give me for the things I asked for sorces on.
I shall type my closing after your post(s) are made.

austin12345
Apprentice
Posts: 127
Joined: Fri Jul 13, 2012 6:05 pm

Post #6

Post by austin12345 »

The definition of nothing is according to Websters dictionary: something that does not exist, the absence of all magnitude or quantity. It has not potentialities no powers no properties it is not anything. Of course we have never experienced anything, were something! All Im saying is that nothingness can do nothing.

Also it seems you are quite happy with (G) not having a cause, yet existing. If (G) is a thing then it too would have to have a cause, but specal pleeding saves it from having to follow the rule. Intreging that (G) gets to break the rules you set forth.
What the premes says is that anything that begins to exist has a cause. God didn’t begin to exist. Also God is outside time which means no beginning no end.
I can not speak to what nothing is - a state of zero everything, or is a a state of pontental everything - who knows - I have read that some scientiests do think that something can come from said "nothing" or that "nothing" is not a thing at all - it is an idea in our brains and never to be found in reality - that the "nothing" we assume or think might have been "before" (if such a word applys) to the universe might have been something - but it might not be. The problem is, we just have no idea.

I also would like these scientists names, there peir review articles and there rebuttals. Nothingness you are describing is something. You say that “that the "nothing" we assume or think might have been "before� I am not talking that. I am saying that nothingness is not anything. You are making it seem like it is something.
I gave you facts as to the beginning of the universe. Seven of them that show the beginning so look at those. You have not offered any objection to those facts.
Well - if there is a (G) it could make a horse pop into existance behind (or in front of) me right now, and that would - if repeatable - perhaps become a test we could use to prove (G)'s existance. However, perhaps as you said, such a thing is impossible. However - the problem with this idea is that the air around me is a "something" and that even in outerspace - there are "something" that is - engery, gravity, dust, etc. So - the example fails to show that "nothing" can not produce something because you did not referance "nothing" you referance empty space around a person - and that emptiy space is actualy filled with air, dust, particals of light , etc. So it is far from being "nothing".

What I argued is anything that begins has to come from a cause. I never meant a horse can come out of nothing right now. obviously not. I am saying that it cannot happen uncaused. So if God made a horse it would have a cause. You also should know that The scripturs teach that Jesus says do not put the Lord your God to the Test.

Some say the universe is a collection of engery, mass, particals, planets, phyiscs and other things,
You said it right there. The universe is all mass energy particles etc. That is all things

Time is the measure of something from beginning to end. Space is the collection stated above.
Here is a quote from Vilenkin himself
Regarding this, Vilenkin states: “It is said that an argument is what convinces reasonable men and a proof is what it takes to convince even an unreasonable man. With the proof now in place, cosmologists can no longer hide behind the possibility of a past-eternal universe. There is no escape; they have to face the problem of a cosmic beginning.�6

Again you say
How do we know? - If we have never observed nothingness I do not think we can say anything about it - at all. Perhaps it can or can not produce things. I have no idea.
Nothingness is literally nothing. You are making it sound like it is something. It is not anything. Nothing.

“I assume you are refering to my verous dismantlig of augments you put forward - an apeal to popularity does occure in much of what you write, and an appeal to experts / athority is also at hand. But - I am not sure what you are defending - but just saying that "it is not a fallacy" is not defending your points - you can not simply assert you did not make a fallacy when one asserts you have, you must show the oppenent (me) to be in error.�

I did refute this. I said you can quote people without being argument ad populatum. It is only when you base your argument on a scholar is it fallacious. But I simply used scholars to back it up. Not the source of my argument.


“What problems are they flaunt with?�

I left it open for you to defend. But lets take the multi-verse hypothesis for example.
For one if the multiverse hypothesis were true our universe would be completely different that nwhat we see now. For example, the universe would be smaller. Second there is not a single strand of evidence to show its truth. Third, the original mother universe which spins of these daughter universes by scientific explantation would itself have to begin according to the bod guth velinkin theory. Alexander velankin being a huge proponent of this theory himself. Also, it is shown that an infinite amount of universes was spun of. Well first infinity is not possible and time began. But lets not say that now. What if the possibilities of a life sustaining universe was 1 in 100,000^1,000,000,000,000 power. How many universes would exist? Infinity. That is self contradictory. Then you do the same math for life and then intelligent life and every thing would have intelligent life.
The fact is that is is not a viable option and even so, the mother universe began and again anything that begins has a cause.

The big bang and most all scientist believe time came into existence when the universe did.
In regards to the beginning in the big bang just type it in on google. It obviously postulates a beginning one reference though is: http://www.ugcs.caltech.edu/~yukimoon/BigBang/
“The universe is an open system - in that it has no "end" as far as space goes. The problem here, as I see it - is not that stars we observe will end - of that I have no question - but new stars are devolping all the time.

What you are asking however, is if all of everything has a start in the singularty of the big (expantion) bang. (expantion defines it better then bang) - I do not know, there might have been more then one, you might be right and the universe will run itself out and "bang" again, or grow cold and at some distant time the atoms will lose all there pull and disapate into nothingness - and we will have nothing - utter nothing�
What I am saying is that the universe will blow up eventually. But no science has recently gotten to the edges of the unviverse. In regards to your nothing you contradict yourself. You say we don’t know what nothing is or even that you don’t know it will exist.

Sure, your (G) is the specal exepction to the rule. (Specal pleeding at work here!)

WHY?
HOW can something exist outside time?
How can you know?
Where would it exist?

The creator of time has to exist outside time and transcend it. That is God. God doesn’t exist in a certain place so I don’t know where he exists.
“But, I am trying to be a bit troublesome - I am agreeing in jest - I would agree that anything inlcuding (G) being eternal is impossible - there is a hidden IF - if we do agree upon that fact, then I might be willing to agree that the universe has a start - but I have to be given the evedance and explation of this said start and the way we get there must be the same all the way though, so if we use science to deside this at the start, we must use science at the end. Sceince as far as I know is still trying to unravel this question:�

As a skeptic you should follow the truth nomatter what I believe. You say you will only say the universe began if God began. But I will NEVER say that. Obviously the universe could not exist unless something created it. That is God.
“You reasion that the univere's cause must be something that you can not prove to exist. I reasion that the universe's cause if any is unknown.�
You again contradict yourself. You said previously it doesn’t need a cause, now you say it is unknown. What I offer you is the Cause. A transcended omnipotent omnipresent omniscient God who loved you enough he sent his Son Jesus Christ to die for you. He also has sent his HOLY SPIRIT to us.
“If (G) makes law (X) (G) does not have to obay (X)...?�
If I lived in England at the time of the colonization of America, and I instituted a gov. in America but lived in England I am not bound by the government I installed.

“As far as I know, no human heart has been found that contains writing on it.�
Obviously not literal writing.
A sin is falling short of God’s Glory or something that is against his Code seperationg you from him. Ask a question about the Bible. You have the burden of proof to show it isn’t valid.

I do not understand this. A person who says "killing" or "raping" is moraly blind? How is saying something wrong - you meen doing? I'm not sure what you are trying to augue at this point. Please clarify.

I mean the person who says killing and raping is fine is morally blind sorry about that.
In fact- there was a woman who drowened her own childern because she belived that the childern would go to heven. Is she sad about this? I do not know, but it should be clear from events such as this that people do not always seem to "know" what is wrong

Again she is morally blind.
How do you know animals do not have morals or ethics - or emotions that could lead to the devolpment of said morals/ethics?

Dog saves life of dog:


Gorilla saves a kid who fell into the cage at a zoo:


Koko (gorralla) crys over the death of her pet kitten:



Perhaps morals and/or emotions (that lead to make morals) are devolved by all animals to greater or lesser degrees, and we humans being animals have brains that took them futher then others - so far.

First, that isn’t an argument for the grounding of morality. Second, what I was saying is that on atheism (non Theism, agnostisicm) There are no grounds for morality. Morality from the micheal russ quote is illusory. Also Richard Dawkins says the same. It shows that there is no objective right or wrong, just something to benefit the species.
If you believe good is truly good and bad is truly bad it then there has to be an objectively good being. This good being told us right and wrong.


There is no "fine tuning" this word is a made up word... but non the less - evoultion of universe hypothesis would account for the universe functioning in the most stable way possible - and if that way happens to permit life then it would do so.

It wouldn’t account for the universe, just biological life. Second evolution is very unlikely. Two physicists by the names of Barrow and Tipler studied the probability of evolution. They wrote in their book “The Anthropic Cosmological Principle� the probability of evolution was quoted by William Lane Craig “In this book, they list ten steps in the source of human evolution, each of which is so improbable that before it would have occurred the sun would cease to be a main sequence star and would have burned up the earth.� He goes on to state the actual mathematical probability of evolution as 4^-180^ (110,000) and 4^-360^ (110,000). “A number so huge that to call it astronomical would be a wild understatement. In other words, if evolution did occur, it would have been a miracle. So that evolution is actually evidence for the existence of God.�
And yes I got it off of Craigs website.
But I wrote a whole paper against evolution and would be happy to share it with you.

About Josephus go read his book.
Now there was about this time Jesus, a wise man, if it be lawful to call him a man, for he was a doer of wonderful works, a teacher of such men as receive the truth with pleasure. He drew over to him both many of the Jews, and many of the Gentiles. He was the Christ, and when Pilate, at the suggestion of the principal men among us, had condemned him to the cross, those that loved him at the first did not forsake him; for he appeared to them alive again the third day; as the divine prophets had foretold these and ten thousand other wonderful things concerning him. And the tribe of Christians so named from him are not extinct at this day.
Jewish Antiquities 18.3.3


But the younger Ananus who, as we said, received the high priesthood, was of a bold disposition and exceptionally daring; he followed the party of the Sadducees, who are severe in judgment above all the Jews, as we have already shown. As therefore Ananus was of such a disposition, he thought he had now a good opportunity, as Festus was now dead, and Albinus was still on the road; so he assembled a council of judges, and brought before it the brother of Jesus the so-called Christ, whose name was James, together with some others, and having accused them as lawbreakers, he delivered them over to be stoned.
Jewish Antiquities 20.9.1
Christus, the founder of the [Christian] name, was put to death by Pontius Pilate, procurator of Judea in the reign of Tiberius. But the
pernicious superstition, repressed for a time, broke out again, not only through Judea, where the mischief originated, by through the city of
Rome also." Annals XV, 44

GAIUS SUETONIUS TRANQUILLUS (69 - 130 A.D.) Suetonius was a prominent Roman historian who recorded the lives of the Roman
Caesars and the historical events surrounding their reigns. He served as a court official under Hadrian and as an annalist for the Imperial
House. Suetonius records the expulsion of the Christian Jews from Rome (mentioned in Acts 18:2) and confirms the Christian faith being
founded by Christ.

"As the Jews were making constant disturbances at the instigation of Chrestus, [Claudius] expelled them from Rome." Life of Claudius 25.4
List goes on.

How meny angels are there and how meny women are there when they go to find Jesus at the tomb? Do the women report there findings or not?
The Bible is not contradictory. If the Bible says one angel it doesn’t mean that two cant be there. Same with the woman. The Bible never says excluding certain women, just leaves them out. In regards to the woman, obviously they report the body missing. The author Mark’s possible reason for not showing it is that he didn’t write about the appearances and the woman only told in the other Gospels after Mary saw appearance of the Risen Lord.
http://christiananswers.net/archaeology/
If it is known to be reliable you have to show flaws.
Also people would again say Jesus never existed in the jewish time for the sake off such as huge following of Christians. But never did.

I also think that Jesus's words and deeds being so close to other pegan myths is not to be dismissed so easy as you wish it to be.

Again present arguments not just opinions. I have looked at it and they are not even close to being relatively compatible.

You have not argument against the four facts I posted for the Resurrection. Until then there is nothing to say.

About the Perfection argument, that is one I made up like a year ago. But what I am saying is you know what a Perfect being would Do. Be all Loving, have all power all knowledge, every were at ones, exist eternall transcendent of time, be Just and Righteous. That’s God.
I have another argument but debate is almost over so no need for that one now. Plus I am still working on it.
You gave opinions not rebuttals.
Mormons clain to be Christians starting relativle 1700 years after Christ same with scientologist so it is an argument.
“Evoultion is as true as gravity. I'm sorry you have been told it is untrue or read that is the case. I am glad it does not scare you personaly, I would emploe you to study it.�

I have studied evolution. It doesn’t look clear cut to me. And about the proffesors I didn’t use them to prove argument just to back it up. You didn’t give and argument. That is a picture perfect argument as populatum. I will post my paper against evolution for you to look at. I want some criticism any way. But it is more Philosophical than anything. But the fossil records from evolution is very questionable. Anywho I am not against it persay. It doesn’t hurt Christianity one bit if true.

Good place to hide out. How do you know that there IS anything beound or "outside" the universe?

I showed you already. But I suggest you read miracles by C.S. Lewis.
Sciene may prove results but science itself is not a proven system. That’s why it is trial and error all the time. Science can prove a lot but not things like math, history, if your thought are really yours and not mine, science itself, etc.
I Do have the proof whether you believe it or not I hate using computers that’s why I don’t have time I am very slow typer. But in regards to your arguments I haven’t seen anything good.

Noahs ark is on mt. Ararat in Turkey by a group of chinease archeologists. Google it. http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news ... n-culture/
http://www.biblearchaeology.org/post/20 ... Bible.aspx
Without you presenting any arguments for your own belief of skepticism than there is no need to believe in what you have said. All of the argument I have presented have withstood.
I think that needless suffering is not answered by the (G) theroy. If (G) cares and has power why does it not help us? Eather it does not care or does not have the power.

All I said is it shows God exists. The answer for why there is evil could be that God wants us to realize how bad this world is but to show us the peace we get through his Son JESUS CHRIST. All I have to do is show it is logically valid which I did. Also Christ came to give us escape from this world. And I have shown he exists and rose.

In conclusion, I think there have been very valid argument for the Christian God Shown Through Jesus Christ. The rebuttals given by my opponent did not seen like rebuttals but more opinions with no sources to back it up. In the other hand I also see that there are not any good reasons to not believe in God. More than that there are no reasons why you shouldn’t believe in the Christian God Jesus Christ.
So if you sincerely seek Christ I believe that the Holy Spirit will come upon you and allow you to see the truth of Jesus Christ.
Thanks and God Bless

User avatar
playhavock
Guru
Posts: 1086
Joined: Thu Jun 07, 2012 10:38 am
Location: earth

Closing statments

Post #7

Post by playhavock »

My opponent has plenty of claims and augments, but no reliable sources sighted. When pressed to give citations my opponent gives biased sources and an article (not a finding) that only shows that someone thinks they found Noah’s ark – (for the 4th or 5th time that someone has “found it�) – an article is not a source. A finding would have been published and the findings reviewed.

My opponent has skipped over or just ignored much, if not all of my point made in my opening, and so all points made must stand as if they are true. (due to the rules of debate)

Now, my opponent has one clear issue – that I have no support for my position – what is my position?

My position is one of a skeptic. To inquire, to ask questions, to analyse. In this debate I can point out the logical fallacys or errors. I can ask critical questions, and when I do so , the answers provided are lackluster.

I do not assume or presume anything other then what I do know to be within the field of science, and here when we encounter the cosmological augments we see a fatal flaw – they use scientific findings until science becomes more cumbersome then useful then turn to using philosophical augments.

We simply do not know if the singularity of the universe had a cause, and just as a side note – the big bang is still a working theory – that is to say, there are other theory – just that this is currently the best one we have – thus far. I have no issue accepting it for what it is – but I also state that scientists have just not yet come to any agreement or theory on what made the big bang happen – if anything at all did. So, again – we do not have a scientific answer. Not yet.

Rather then conclude here, the theistic apologist would have us used deductive logic to get to an answer – but deductive logic does not function in this way- it can not produce answers in the same way that science can. So, apologetics are using the wrong tool for the job.

During the enlightenment when logic was set aside in favor of studying the “how� of things, the scientific method was born, and since then we have gotten very good at using it, but the pour apologist is stuck using logic, and augments – rather then facts, for there augments. So , we have logically formatted augments who have premises we can not be sure of – because the premises do not stand the test of science OR even logic itself. They fall under the weight of critical questioning.

My opponent also makes an error that I’ve seen repeated more then once –that science has to be used to prove science – this is just silly. We can be assured that the scientific method works – by its results, we do not have to use it to test itself.

We also must note that my opponent clearly has bias for rejecting evolution, but not the science that he thinks supports his premises and conclusions – I even showed that, using his own logic he should accept evolution as a fact, yet – he does not – we must ask why this is, my only conclusion is that evolution is attacked by most creationists who deny it not on any scientific grounds but because they fear it harms there theology.

After all, a pure reading of Genesis is impossible if evolution Is true (and it is) also the flood myth has to be true for those who think that the bible is literal history – even though there is amble reasons to question the flood story. Yet none of this matters for the person who thinks that the bible is meant to be read in such-and-such way, all that maters for them is faith – not facts.

I go where the evidence and facts take me – not using just logic – because logic alone can not do the job, only evidence can – and we must be critical of the evidence, we must be able to test our ideas and show that they produce results.

We simply do not see critical thinking such as this going on in my opponents augments , rather we see recycled augments, bad science, and questionable conclusions.

My view is supported by the evidence , and my view is simple when it comes to the universe’s origin: I do not know, no one does.

I go farther to say, that the only way we will find out is with science, not with philosophy, not with deductive logic. If there is a (G) to be found, we would find it with science. Yet, the theist insists we can not find (G) – so why belive there is a (G) – why have evidence that “points� to (G) yet have (G) hiding? It seems quite strange – yet this is the realm of the apologist, they insist we have an answer, when we do not.

For what little archeological evidence that is unbiased I have found – we can confirm only that some of the citys and some of the places existed – the sight that my opponent sighted is biased and can not be trusted, I would required a reviewed paper on the city of Jericho to know it is a place, and to know the walls fell “out� rather then in. Even then, it would only prove two things- one: Jericho existed, and two: that the walls fell outwards at some point. Unless we had more to go on we could not conclude anything else.

Critical questions are the best sort of questions we can ask about anything. For example on the Jericho city we might ask:

Who wrote this?

Do they have anything to gain by this being true or false?

Is this confirmed by others?

Those are just three of several critical questions we could ask, we should ask, nay – we MUST ask. We must ask questions, always –and more so when someone says to not ask questions! Why is (G) hiding behind a wall of the universe and even if we could break the wall we would never, ever find it with our tools? Perhaps, (G) is not out there, but in our brain.

If we are all we have, and this life is all we get, and I think this is the case, it is better to be skeptical of claims like (G), if one choose to belive in it, they place themselves with a huge burden that they can simply not carry, for there is no evedence, no augment, and no way to test that it is true.

We started with the question of if God or as I put it (G) existed - not just in the brain but reality itself, we also wanted to know what (G) it is, since there are plenty of claims to go around. We end with nothing but questions, is it not better then to simply say we do not know, rather then think we do?

I would implore my opponent, and all readers if they do not think evolution is true to go study it, read – read pages that are not written by creationists writers. For those who think the earth is less then 4.5 billons years old – to study why we know it is. To be willing to question that you most hold dear, whatever it is, be it the idea of (G) or any other thing that you think is true. Are you willing to do that, if not – ask yourself – why not.

As a skeptic, I continue to learn as much as I can, for knowing is something far greater then just believing.

Post Reply